| HN Mirror

That's a nice bit of trivia but it doesn't really affect the comment you're replying to. It's still food, full of flavor and calories, and able to be used by a home cook (by making a pie).

If you researched this regulation even a little, you'd see the crops are rarely destroyed. They are far more often exported, diverted to secondary markets, donated, or carried-over into next-season's stock.

It's interesting to me how people are quick to comment about things they know nothing about...

> It's still food, full of flavor and calories

Tart cherries have about 1-2 calories per cherry, and do not taste good without a lot of sugar. That's why they are used in commercial processing, not generally sold as a fruit in grocery stores.

Coming back later, I realized earlier I looked up the calories but I didn't compare them to anything else. So while tart cherries "only" have 50 calories per 100g, sweet cherries are up around 60, not very different. An apple also has about 50-60 per 100g. So does an orange.

Fruit isn't super dense in calories to begin with because it has so much water, but it's still a meaningful amount, and tart cherries are pretty standard among fruit.

Which is to say consuming tart cherries is not a significant source of calories and not something "people in need" are in need of at all.

Maybe just quit being needlessly pedantic? Every point you've attempted to raise in this thread has been entirely pointless and equally ridiculous.

> Which is to say consuming tart cherries is not a significant source of calories and not something "people in need" are in need of at all.

This applies to almost all fruit though. But saying people in need don't need any fruit would be a terrible stance. What gives?

Alupis 57 days ago

So we're moving goalposts? Where did I say people in need don't need any fruit?

People in need don't need single/one calorie tart cherries that are rarely eaten on their own. Consuming tart cherries typically involves processing that is more costly in terms of ingredients and time than simply using the pre-processed versions. Tart cherries are sometimes donated and are rarely destroyed.

Which argument will you come up with next?

You've bounced all over the place in this thread. Just let it rest...

> If you researched this regulation even a little

Yeah yeah yeah I saw that in your other comment.

That's a completely different argument.

The argument you made in this comment is still a bad one.

It's interesting to me how people are quick to move the goalposts...

So you understood the crop we're discussing is rarely destroyed - and more often donated, diverted to secondary markets (ie. sold in grocery stores), or exported - yet still felt compelled to say a home cook could use them?

What was even the point of your snarky comment then?

> So you understood the crop we're discussing is rarely destroyed - and more often donated, diverted to secondary markets (ie. sold in grocery stores), or exported - yet still felt compelled to say a home cook could use them?

In the context of someone talking about home cooks using them, and you acting like "People do not eat tart cherries directly." is a counterargument, yes I felt compelled to correct that.

The incorrect thing you were implying had nothing to do with how often they're actually destroyed. So why would that stop me?

People do not eat tart cherries directly. The overwhelming majority of people will never process them into something edible either.

"People in need" are not going to spend time and money processing tart cherries into juice concentrate or pie filling... especially when a can of either is cheaper than the raw ingredients to make your own.

Your point is ridiculous, absurd and pedantic beyond any reasonable purpose.